No suspension for South Lyon councilman in conflict of interest aftermath

A request by South Lyon Councilwoman Margaret Kurtzweil to suspend South Lyon Councilman Glenn Kivell for 20 days related to a conflict of interest case was opposed 5-2 by the city council.

Kurtzweil and Councilman Joe Ryzyi voted yes at the July 10 council meeting.

Kivell and other council members were ready to move forward from the matter.

“The endless toxicity is one of the biggest adversarial things that we’re going to be facing … however long we’re together,” Kivell said. “There has been an endless campaign — both Joe and Maggie in particular — have been campaigning from the time that you got on this board. And it’s really divisive because you spend so much time pointing at yourself about how important you are that you lose the fact that we’re here to actually try and work on behalf of the people that live in this community.

“I hope that this being put to bed that we can finally try to work as a group in a constructive manner. Everyone has positive things to bring to the party.”

Councilwoman Mary Parisien said at the July 10 meeting that while Kivell’s behavior was inappropriate, she felt the issue had passed.

“There are many other things going on in South Lyon that need our focus, that need our attention — our budget, the downtown,” she said. “This is old news. We are moving forward. I believe that Councilman Kivell has been punished enough. His name has been in and out of the news; it’s been all over the state of Michigan.

“For me personally, I don’t think there’s any coming back from that. Your reputation is everything. Your build it every day and you break it down with one false move. So, for me, that’s punishment enough. That walks with you everywhere.”

Voting issue

The issue arose from votes Kivell cast in August 2016 to award bids to his employer, South Lyon-based Pullum Windows, for $40,000 to replace windows at the police department and the South Lyon Area Recreation Authority building. Kivell later apologized for failing to disclose his employment with the company.

Subsequently, the council paid law firm Dykema Gossett more than $36,000 to investigate the allegations that Kivell violated the city charter and state law provisions regarding conflict of interest.

Dykema Gossett attorneys found that lack of disclosure resulted in seven misdemeanor violations under the city charter, city code and state law. The report found that while Kivell had a financial interest in the Pullum contracts as an employee, he did not receive anything beyond his normal wages — no commission or bonus.

The council eventually voted to seek criminal prosecution — Kivell abstained and didn't participate in the discussion — with South Lyon Police turning the investigation over to the Oakland County Sheriff's Office.

Kurtzweil(Photo: file photo)

“I think when you have an elected official who clearly, clearly had a conflict of interest, failed to disclose it and would have not have disclosed it if it had not come to light, apologized for the conduct later on, cost the city almost $38,000 … at some point, some level of accountability needs to be held,” Kurtzweill said July 10.

Before the council voted, Mayor John Galeas expressed frustration with the personality clashes involving council members and how the Kivell situation unfolded.

“When we had the first opportunity to (censure), this council voted it down and decided not to go that route. We couldn’t get anything straight between the group because there was too much arguing going on and grandstanding,” he said.

'Like being a babysitter'

“In 25-30 years of business I’ve never had to deal with people like you guys. This is like being a babysitter," Galeas continued. "The lawyer came in, made his decision, gave us the report — no one is questioning how well it was written and how well the report was done … It’s my opinion, we had an opportunity to censure him. I thought that might have been fine during that time. This council chose no. So then, that wasn’t good enough; ‘let’s try it again, let’s take it to court one more time.’ …

“It did go to the prosecutor’s office. Now, we’re going to get somebody who is going to really look at it based on whether they believe something is there or not. They came back with a very specific answer and said ‘no, case is closed.’ So, in my mind, case is closed. We had an opportunity to censure him, we didn’t do it. The council said no.”